BD,Yes that is what we keep hearing on radio and on cable that "everyone will behind the scenes tell 'you' they fear he will cost them majorities in the houses"

I am not sure what to make of this. I am somewhat skeptical that would happen. Yet the polls so far do tend to show he would not beat Bama. If that changes and starts to score with the independents I would certianly reconsider my support.

While Mitt certainly doesn't blow me away with the brilliant oratory like Newt he is satisfactory and on balance quite attractive overall. He is a bit of a compromise for me but my conclusion we MUST beat Obama and this country cannot afford chances.

A lame duck Bama is frightening and even more so if Newt would cause the houses to go to the crats. The pundits keep trying to tell us Bama has/is really been a moderate and all. We all know he is a radical leftist who governs left of center ONLY because he has to to keep power. So yeah, the idea of his being a lame duck and unleashed from a re election is very unsettling.

I also have expressed that fear, yet there seems to be a tendency of the voters to choose divided government. If they are about to reelect Pres. Obama then maybe they will give him an R Senate and House as with Pres. Clinton. The ability to stop all new big government initiatives still leaves us in a train headed off a cliff from my point of view.

If Romney wins as a weak or compromising Republican with a let's-see-how-it-goes agenda and a razor thin majority in the House and Senate, nothing bold will be enacted or repealed.

Republicans need a clear agenda and a clear up or down vote on it. Either the electorate will be sold or it won't.

"If Romney wins as a weak or compromising Republican with a let's-see-how-it-goes agenda and a razor thin majority in the House and Senate, nothing bold will be enacted or repealed. Republicans need a clear agenda and a clear up or down vote on it. Either the electorate will be sold or it won't."

I find myself wishing Mitt would get his act together rather than pulling for Newt or Rick S, even though I am probably to the right of all 3 of them. If Newt is the nominee, I will be 100% behind him. ------------Latest Gallup has Obama over Romney and Gingrich by the same margin, 50-48. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx That is quite a move for Newt. I think South Carolina was Newt's peak, but we will see.------------I look forward to seeing which candidate truly answers the speech going on as I write. The President has set just tossed a slow hanging curve ball over the heart of the plate for the former Speaker to hit out of the park. (Here he is, throwing his pitch - well not quite over the plate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJGkPf9gZzM)

First it should be said that the ethics charges then were largely bogus. Marc Levin was very strong on that and says he was there.

Krauthammer is saying he left in defeat instead of disgrace. The so-called disgrace was two years earlier.

But the defeat was at partly based on the cloud of these and other leadership issues that led to his 15% approval rate at the time.

There is both good and bad to be taken from that time. Winning a national election (yes) in 1994, getting to a balanced budget, welfare reform, trade expansion and capital gains tax rate reductions on the large plus side. Not bringing the public with you and not keeping the confidence and respect of the people around you were problems. Also the end of baseline budgeting was a promise in the contract. When was that fight and where was that focus? Winning that war then might have headed off a lot of what went wrong since.

No matter what Hillary or Bill Clinton say or do at this time I will *never* like either. She can smile and look adorable and give the impression she is kind and considerate and sweet. It makes no difference to me. I simply will not forget them from the 90's.

I wish them no harm but do wish they would both just go away and stay in private life and leave this country alone.

Apparently many people feel that way about Newt. I don't, but so what. I am just one.

A bad night for Newt last night; mistakes he has made have come home to roost and bite him in the ass.

So, before he loses in FL, and therefore probably Romney wins the nomination, tis worth a moment to pause and reflect upon the point that Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ makes here:

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ It became clear two minutes after Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina that citizens were about to be treated to a non-stop effort to portray his smashing win as the result of his attack on the media. A victory, we were informed by cable and network commentators, which Mr. Gingrich owed to his cleverness in finding ways to give the press-hating right-wingers in South Carolina the red meat they craved.

He'd won, we heard repeatedly, by insulting a fine reporter, CNN's John King -- pronouncements accompanied by no little handwringing and defense of Mr. King who had only done what any good reporter-moderator would have done in raising the question about the public accusations made by Mr. Gingrich's second wife. Mr. King, it turned out, was far more serene about events than the chorus of commentators mourning his alleged victimization by Mr. Gingrich.

The image of the speaker as a man who owes his current strength mainly to attacks on the press is now a standard tool of his opponents -- a caricature meant to offset certain realities about his rise. The sort of realities recognizable to considerable numbers of people in Iowa where polls had begun running heavily in favor of Mr. Gingrich from late November on in the wake of his debate performance there and elsewhere. Iowans heard, from Mr. Gingrich, not media attacks but bracing expressions of American values electric in their effect. That was why he kept rising in the polls.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.That is, until, under the sheer weight of a nonstop, richly financed ad assault on behalf of Mitt Romney, they began to crumble as Mr. Gingrich was depicted, relentlessly, in the darkest terms. Then came South Carolina, and a debate, in which the speaker who had held those earlier audiences in thrall appeared on stage again, and in full voice. This time, to turn aside a journalist's effort to bait him with questions suggesting he was a racist, into a powerful affirmation of the right of all citizens of every race and status to hold a job, to earn money.

That was the standing ovation moment, and he had not reached it by attacking the press. That moment was his because he had given eloquent voice to core beliefs prized by most Americans.

The speaker has made his missteps in these forums. Among them we can count those little moments -- there were two -- of flirtatious deference, Monday, to Ron Paul and some of Dr. Paul's ideas which the speaker now discovers he can embrace. Not a pretty sight. There ought to be a way in which displays of realpolitik -- attracting the Paul voters -- come out looking better than this, if they're to be made at all. A dubious proposition.

Tonight's debate in Florida may be, as advertised, crucial to the outcome of the race there. But whether Speaker Gingrich knocks this one out of the park or he doesn't, one fact stands clear. He's survived this long against extraordinary odds and attained the challenger status he now holds not because of his nifty way of attacking the media, poor dears. He's here because he speaks to people in ways that assume their interest in ideas of consequence, and they know it -- they can hear. And because he speaks in ways that reflect a respect for their intelligence, and has much to say to them. They know that, too. This way of relating to voters is no gimmick. It's a condition of mind and one of bottomless value on a campaign trail.

I need to figure out how to get in with the in crowd so I can visit the permanent moon base in 9 years. Who do you think will go? 13,000 is a pretty big group. Even if I can't, I'm excited for Newt now. How awesome would a moon base be?

Nor did we hear it much last night from Newt, who would have done much better if had focused on Baraq's State of the Soviet Union speech. Instead he tried playing gotcha games with Mitt and lost badly.

"Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself."

Yeah it does appear this way. For me to continue to keep writing it off as *Wash Establishment*. is not being realistic. All these people can't be wrong or simply doing this for nefarious reasons. They have worked with him side by side and could see exactly this.

"He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway."

We are seeing it now. Newt, we keep hearing has no organization and is running his campaign solely on his debating, speech skills.Didn't he also have a team that left him some months back. Though I want a #1 guy who is confident, I am not sure I want one who will never listen to others at all.

"Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall."

We are essentially to some degree seeing that now. He does seem to have an element of mania especially when he does start to do well he gets a little out of control. Like Crafty points out he got off message the last debate because he got focused on knocking off Romney.

I am almost completely sure I would have to vote for Romney.

As for Bob Dole, I like the guy, he liked to compromise, was known for that more than anything, terrible Prez candidate but his words are echoed by so many others they most likely are true and not just sour grapes, etc.

And what we are seeing does corroborate what are have siad about Newt in the 90's.

Time Traveler From The Year 1998 Warns Nation Not To Elect Newt Gingrich

January 26, 2012 | ISSUE 48•04

WASHINGTON—Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign. "In my time, he shuts down the federal government for 28 days because his feelings get hurt over having to sit at the back of Air Force One. Gingrich gets our president impeached for lying about marital infidelities when, at the same time, Gingrich himself is engaged in his own extramarital affairs. And for God's sake, he divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Won't anyone listen to me?!?" When asked about Donald Trump, the time-traveler said he had no information on the man, as no one from 1998 cared about a "washed-up fake millionaire."

a) To be precise, as has already been posted here (but perhaps you missed it?), the first wife and NG already had been formally separated for several years and the effort at reconciliation wasn't working and SHE wanted to divorce him. None of us know what was going on between them-- which is kind of how it belongs.

b) Yes NG had hubris in the front/back of the plane incident, but the shutdown of the govt. was about a mighty effort to cut govt spending, an effort from which the Reps flinched.

c) I could be wrong, but I remember the ethics charges as being relatively minor and in part due to NG having stepped on toes, many of which needed stepping. The charges were two years before his resignation. His resignation came because of Rep losses in the elections which had just taken place. This was recently exlained here in this thread in the Krauthammer piece. Perhaps you missed it?

Ok here is Joe's first hand account. I have been tough on Joe. He often appears a sell out MSLSD. Yet this may shed us some light. Newt's downfall was after the polls clearly showed that HE not Clinton was being blamed by a majority of Americans for the government shutdown. That IS what I remember. His political collapse came soon after that. I no doubt would think the liberal MSM had a big role in the public's perception. It seems whenever the PRes goes up against the houses for spending bills (like we saw recently with the spending limit bruhaha between Boehner and OBama) the Pres wins out.

From what I gather that Newt gave up on his principles after his falling in the polls by appeasing on the big spenders and tax raisers etc. He appears to have panicked, put his tail between his legs and given up on HIS own contract. That is when and why his own people abandoned him.

Excerpt from Scarborough:

***Three years into his speakership, the man who helped draft the Contract With America began trying to undo some of that document’s key provisions. The government shutdown had badly damaged the speaker’s brand and he went to work trying to raise his 27 percent approval rating.

In April 1997, Gingrich told The New York Times he was ready to be a kinder and gentler Republican by negotiating away the very tax cuts that he had once called “the crown jewels of the contract.” Soon, conservatives were being pressured to vote for big spending appropriations bills.***

OTOH when thinking about my above post it seems strange the people who are now criticizing Newt for compromising are some of the biggest compromisers. Isn't Dole's (lauded even by the MSM) ability to "work with the other side" and who championed big government anti-business things like American with Disabilities Act and Scarborough who sits next to the Misha or whatever her name is and often agrees with the MSNBCers being somewhat disingenius?

Why I support Newt Gingrich for president January 29th, 2012 | Author: Herman Cain

Herman CainIn a sea of negativity and distractions in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, I decided to throw my support behind former Speaker Newt Gingrich because I can now see much clearer distinctions between President Obama and Newt than I do between Governor Mitt Romney and the president.These distinctions are between Obama’s hodgepodge of foggy small ideas, which he talked about in his State of the Union address, and Speaker Gingrich’s clear and bold solutions for solving the crises we face as a nation. And yes, my bold 9-9-9 tax reform plan is a serious consideration for Speaker Gingrich, which is why I accepted his invitation to co-chair his Economic Growth and Tax Reform Advisory Council.The polls do not agree with my assessment of Speaker Gingrich, and it appears that the so-called political establishment does not agree. But remember, I’m Mr. Unconventional, and the ability of the Republican nominee to highlight distinctions clearly in the general election campaign will be critical to achieving the ultimate mission of defeating President Obama.My decision was not based on the political pundits’ attempted labeling of the candidates as conservative, most conservative,moderate, liberal Republican, not a true conservative, not a real conservative or any other of the concocted labels by which they try to pigeonhole candidates.My decision to support Speaker Gingrich was also not influenced by all of the attacks and dirt dug up from Newt’s personal and political past, which all of the campaigns are guilty of doing – including Newt’s. As a reminder, Newt specifically tried to stay out of the negative attack mode but was forced into it after being bombarded with attacks in Iowa, and some early attacks in South Carolina, where he not only survived but won the primary.The bombardment of attacks on Newt is being launched again in Florida. I believe he will survive as the clarity of his solutions rises above the rhetoric.And now, some of the former Members of Congress who served with Newt when he was Speaker of the House are trashing Newt, even though many former members thought highly of his leadership as Speaker. Their trash and attempts to say Newt was not a “Reagan conservative” (here we go again with the labels) are certainly adding credence to the emerging perception that the so-called Republican establishment is pushing hard for Mitt Romney to be the nominee.That’s because the establishment does not want bold changes in Washington, D.C.The bottom line is that the voters will decide. That’s why the voters got my first endorsement as announced previously, because the people have to remain inspired or the establishment wins. Most of us just want the people to win, and win with a people’s president in November.Here are nine of Speaker Gingrich’s positives:• He successfully led the passage of nine out of ten provisions in the Contract with America when he was Speaker of the House.• He was a key player in passing welfare reform in the 1990s, and got President Bill Clinton to sign the legislation.• He left Congress and spent years studying and developing bold ideas and solutions to our problems, many of which he is using as a candidate. This hiatus as an elected official gave him time for his head to clear and identify how to fix a broken Washington, D.C.• He will ruffle feathers in Washington in order to change Washington.• He will be bold in boosting economic growth because he understands that less government is the key, not more government as Obama believes.• He believes in removing regulatory barriers so this country can become energy-independent by maximizing all of our natural resources.• He is an outstanding debater and his language connects with people.• He fearlessly body-slammed the media in a recent debate, which showed strong conviction, character and leadership qualities.• His motivation to be president is the same as our motivation for bold solutions in Washington, D.C. It’s not about us. It’s about the grandchildren.Thomas Jefferson said, “When people have the right information, then they will make the right decisions.” It is way past time for the media and campaigns to focus on solutions so people can get the right information.We must make the right decision in November 2012.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the collapse of Newt in the polls after the budget stand off in the 90's led some Republicans to come up with the compassionate conservative theory which W embraced. Perhaps some repub strategists concluded too heavy on the strict conservative path may lose the independents.

I am still not sure which way to go. However I do get the idea that compromise cannot be an answer since there really is no compromise with liberals. They will chip away till forever.

OTOH I am not convinced that strict ideology will win out either. I just don't know. I'm afraid Mitt doesn't either.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the collapse of Newt in the polls after the budget stand off in the 90's led some Republicans to come up with the compassionate conservative theory which W embraced. Perhaps some repub strategists concluded too heavy on the strict conservative path may lose the independents.

I am still not sure which way to go. However I do get the idea that compromise cannot be an answer since there really is no compromise with liberals. They will chip away till forever.

OTOH I am not convinced that strict ideology will win out either. I just don't know. I'm afraid Mitt doesn't either.

Agree. Also Al Gore was considered a harmless centrist at that point so conservatism was thought to need tempering. 2012 allows more opportunity and more need for a clear distinction between the path we are on and some version of principled and consistent, common sense conservatism.

Newt's problems in the 90s were complicated. The ethics charges were largely BS but he left enough running room for his critics to make the smear effective. On policy, he was NOT too hard line (IMO), but too unfocused. Clinton took credit for their joint accomplishments and that lasted a decade. Now Gingrich takes at least some credit back as he should. Clinton's Presidency would have been nothing compared to what it was without the changeover of congress which was a national opportunity seized by one great politician - the good Newt. Not the angry one or the unfocused one, which all come in the package.

We don't need compromise with liberals, but we need the right dosage of conservatism to be successfully sold to independents presented the choice. We don't need a zero capital gains rate, but we need a reasonable one and a 'permanent' one. We don't need single digit income tax rates on the richest (per Herman Cain) but we do need to show we are moving significantly away from wealth destruction policies. We don't need pollution spewing, we need environmental gains locked in but with unnecessary and unwise regulations repealed. We don't need to be the world's policeman, but we are the world's superpower so we need a clear explanation of what peace through strength means going forward. We don't need to slash a trillion a year in spending (per Ron Paul) laying off government workers all at once to join the construction workers, we need a path forward that balances private sector growth, revenue growth and serious and specific spending restraint, but not the root canal type.

Newt knows all this, but lacks focus. All those accomplishments (balanced budget, economic growth, a national election victory, etc.) but never locked in baseline budgeting or CBO reform while he moved on, but these turned out to be more crucial now than having formerly balanced budgets.

Ethics violations were largely bogus, yet he goes on to sell himself out to Freddie Mac. He can't explain his work product or any reason a (psuedo)government employee should get a million a year for part time work undefined. It makes him the candidate of a nationalized mortgage industry and slimey public-private-partnerships while he tries fight off others for being big government candidates or not pure in their principles.

He needed to pitch a no-hitter to overcome baggage. He did that through scattered innings here and there but also gave up some grand slams.

The reason he took the Freddie Mac deal was because he needed the money. They have the Tiffany's bill, then the Michelle Obama-like exotic vacation during a key point in the process. Like the I-me Obama SOTU speech, I am seeing another it's-all-about-me candidate.

Reagan for example never made you feel like the election was about him. It was all about a country that he loved.

I agree Newt WAS smeared. Surely with a complicit liberal media.Apparently he did seem to turn around in retreat in the 90's on his contract. Clinton was way to liberal and got pounced. He came back by selling us the "era of big government is over" and than announced a daily nanny statism initiative. Perhaps Newt should have played the same phoney game from the other side. However he would not have had an adoring loving press supporting him as do the Democrats. Perhaps in some regard Newt was being far more realistic than the now self proclaimed stalwarts of conservative like Scarorough who state that Newt abandoned them. Perhaps Newt was right to step back and give in a little (retreat). Maybe better to give in some and lose a battle then the whole war he may have thought. OTOH perhaps he just panicked. I am not sure.

For the Republican party and conservativism in general this seems like THE dilemna. Similar to playing the right approach to the Latinos who are very much in the Democrat party camp though they do hold some strong conservative values with regards to Christian faith.

"We don't need compromise with liberals, but we need the right dosage of conservatism to be successfully sold to independents presented the choice. We don't need a zero capital gains rate, but we need a reasonable one and a 'permanent' one. We don't need single digit income tax rates on the richest (per Herman Cain) but we do need to show we are moving significantly away from wealth destruction policies. We don't need pollution spewing, we need environmental gains locked in but with unnecessary and unwise regulations repealed. We don't need to be the world's policeman, but we are the world's superpower so we need a clear explanation of what peace through strength means going forward. We don't need to slash a trillion a year in spending (per Ron Paul) laying off government workers all at once to join the construction workers, we need a path forward that balances private sector growth, revenue growth and serious and specific spending restraint, but not the root canal type."

Thanks CCP but I have only agreed to serve as veep for Crafty, if asked, in a brokered convention. When they get a good look at my baggage and temperament, Newt's fidelity and focus might look very good.

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER If we judge both leading contenders in the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, by what they've done in life and by what they propose to do if elected, either one could be an excellent president. But when it comes to the election's core issue—restoring a healthy economy—the key is a good tax plan and the ability to implement it.

Mr. Gingrich has a significantly better plan than does Mr. Romney, and he has twice before been instrumental in implementing a successful tax plan on a national level—once when he served in Congress as a Reagan supporter in the 1980s and again when he was President Clinton's partner as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s. During both of these periods the economy prospered incredibly—in good part because of Mr. Gingrich.

Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn't create resources but redistributes resources. To minimize the damages taxes cause the economy, the best way for government to raise revenue is a broad-based, low-rate flat tax that provides people and businesses with the fewest incentives to avoid or otherwise not report taxable income, and the least number of places where they can escape taxation. On these counts it doesn't get any better than Mr. Gingrich's optional 15% flat tax for individuals and his 12.5% flat tax for business. Each of these taxes has been tried and tested and found to be enormously successful.

Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland's 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty. Mr. Romney's tax proposals—including eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%, and extending the current tax rates on personal income, interest, dividends and capital gains—would be an improvement over those of President Obama, but they don't have the boldness or internal integrity of Mr. Gingrich's personal and business flat taxes.

Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest. Low taxes along with all of America's other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs, not make-work jobs like so many of Mr. Obama's stimulus jobs.

Enlarge Image

CloseChad Crowe .Tax codes, in order to work well, require widespread voluntary compliance from taxpayers. And for taxpayers to voluntarily comply with a tax code they have to believe that it is both fair and efficient.

Fairness in taxation means that people and businesses in like circumstances have similar tax burdens. A flat tax, whether on business or individuals, achieves fairness in spades. A person who makes 10 times as much as another person should pay 10 times more in taxes. It is also patently obvious that it is unfair to tax some people's income twice, three times or more after it has been earned, as is the case with the death tax.

The current administration's notion of fairness—taxing high-income earners at high rates and not taxing other income earners at all—is totally unfair. It is also anathema to prosperity and ultimately leads to the situation we have in our nation today.

In 2012, those least capable of navigating complex government-created economic environments find themselves in their worst economic circumstances in generations. And the reason minority, lesser-educated and younger members of our society are struggling so greatly is not because we have too few redistributionist, class-warfare policies but because we have too many. Overtaxing people who work and overpaying people not to work has its consequences.

On a bipartisan basis, government has enacted the very policies that have created the current extremely uneven distribution of income. And then in turn they have used the very desperation they created as their rationale for even more antibusiness and antirich policies. As my friend Jack Kemp used to say, "You can't love jobs and hate job creators." Economic growth achieved through a flat tax in conjunction with a pro-growth safety net is the only way to raise incomes of those on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder.

When it comes to economic efficiency, nothing holds a candle to a low-rate, simple flat tax. As I explained in a op-ed on this page last spring ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of net income tax collected by the Internal Revenue Service, there is an additional 30¢ paid out of pocket by the taxpayers to maintain compliance with the tax code. Such inefficiency is outrageous. Mr. Gingrich's flat taxes would go a lot further toward reducing these additional expenses than would Mr. Romney's proposals.

Mr. Gingrich's tax proposal is not revenue-neutral, nor should it be. If there's one truism in fiscal policy, it's this: Wasteful spending will always rise to the level of revenues. Whether you're in Greece, Washington, D.C., or California, overspending is a prosperity killer of the first order. Mr. Gingrich's flat tax proposals—along with his proposed balanced budget amendment—would put a quick stop to overspending and return America to fiscal soundness. No other candidate comes close to doing this.

Mr. Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, is co-author with Stephen Moore of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).

HOW MITT SUCKERED NEWTBy DICK MORRISPublished on The Hill.com on January 31, 2012

Printer-Friendly VersionFor students of American politics, following the way the Romney campaign played Newt Gingrich in Florida is a lesson to learn and to keep. Romney's people must have realized that Newt does best when he is positive. His bold ideas, clear vision, revolutionary insights and extraordinary perspectives resonate with voters and win him millions of supporters.

Romney, less compelling but more consistent, doesn't need stellar debate performances or bold vision to win. The case for the former Massachusetts governor is more circumstantial: He can reach out to independents by virtue of his past apostasies on healthcare and abortion. He looks, talks and acts like a president. His record of job creation is exemplary.

But Newt needs the bold sally, the breathtaking moment of rhetorical clarity, to prevail.

So Romney's people set out to mire Newt in negatives so he couldn't and wouldn't get out the positive message he needed to project to prevail. They tormented him with negative ads in Iowa. While the ads were generally accurate -- the allegation about backing China's forced-abortion policy aside -- they presented only one side of the story and were stinging in their impact. Without funds, Gingrich couldn't answer the negative ads. He fumed but watched, in impotence, as his vote share fell away.

In Spanish bullfights, the picadors torment the bull by sticking darts into his shoulders. Enraged, bleeding, frustrated and in pain, he lowers his head, snorts, paws the ground and charges straight at the matador, oblivious to the sword awaiting him behind the red cape. That's about what Romney did to Gingrich in the January primaries.

Enter Sheldon Adelson, a Vegas billionaire who loves Newt. His affection runs so deep that he gave Gingrich the funds to destroy himself. With Adelson's reported contribution of $5 million-plus, Newt had the weapons to fight back with his own negative ads. In a rage, he put them on TV and devoted his time in the debates to throwing accusations. RomneyCare. Abortion. Gay rights. The taxes Romney paid and the ones he advocated. Massachusetts moderate. No, make that Massachusetts liberal. They tripped off his tongue and his super-PAC put them on the air. Sheldon paid the bill. But Newt paid the price.

No longer was he Newt the visionary, the leader, the intellect. He was a Nixonian caricature of himself, wallowing in negatives, forsaking the chance to explain himself and his ideas for the chance to jab with attacks.

Newt needed to rebut. Newt needed to go positive. Newt did not need to go negative. He should have used Adelson's funds to reply to Romney's attacks and then to articulate his bold plans for his first day in office. He did not need to exchange punches with Mitt.

As Newt lost his aura, Romney surged. At times, it seemed that Gingrich was motivated more by fury -- like the Spanish bull -- than by ambition or strategic sense. He had lost his cool, and all could see it.

In the end, his foray into negatives raised again the specter of Newt the loose cannon, firing any negative that came to hand. Newt the destroyer who shut down the government and handed Clinton the election in 1996.

Romney pulled Newt off his game. Late on the Monday night before the primary, we had a vision of what could have been. Newt went on the "The Sean Hannity Show" and laid out a sweeping plan for his first month in office. His obvious grasp of the legislative process and the potential reach of executive action was vintage Gingrich. Where had he been all campaign? Wallowing in negative campaigning, courtesy of Romney's strategy in playing him.

Dear Marc,Last week, the Obama administration finalized a radical new rule that uses the health care law to require all health insurance providers to cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization as well as contraception, all free of charge. The administration based the rule’s "religious exemption" on a provision drafted by the ACLU, applying the rule even to religious organizations such as Catholic schools, hospitals, universities and charities that oppose such things as a matter of religious belief.

The weak exemption the administration allowed applies only to religious organizations serving primarily people of the same religion. It is so narrow that Timothy Dolan, the Catholic archbishop of New York City and current head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths."

Because Catholic institutions serve people of all faiths, the adoption by the Obama administration of the ACLU exemption language is an explicit and intentional assault on the Catholic Church in the United States. President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius know full well that they are ordering Catholic institutions to violate their church’s teachings if they want to stay in business. They also know full well that they are explicitly running over the First Amendment protection of religious freedom that every American is supposed to enjoy as a birthright.

President Obama’s message to Catholics is clear: Catholics will not be able to build organizations according to their faith and the teachings of their church as long as they refuse to accept President Obama’s radicalism. President Obama’s order is a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of conscience and an unprecedented assault on Christianity.

Catholics are uniformly opposed to the rule. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association—an Obamacare supporter—expressed disappointment "that the definition of a religious employer was not broadened." Even liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne blasted the rule, arguing that "the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings."

The administration’s small concession—that it would allow organizations with religious objections an extra year to comply—does nothing to acknowledge their concerns. As Archbishop Dolan responded, "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

This past Sunday, Catholics in churches across the country were read a letter from the Bishop of Marquette Alexander Sample drawing their attention to this unprecedented action by President Obama, describing the administration as having "cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty."

Maybe: It is important to remember, as the bishop’s letter reminds us, Catholics, like other religious groups came to America to be free.

"Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights," the letter said. Bishop Sample is right. In choosing the radical agendas of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU over the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty; in dramatically undermining the numerous Catholic educational, health, and charitable institutions that provide so much good to so many Americans; and in implementing a rule no elected official has ever voted on, President Obama has chosen Saul Alinksy radicalism over the Constitution. It’s hard to see how many people of faith will long remain in a political party so hostile to their beliefs and their rights.

Given his poor showing yesterday, it may be too late, but it appears that Newt has been reading our forum

President Obama's Incredible Shrinking Labor Forceby Newt GingrichDear Marc,President Obama last week brandished new jobs numbers as proof that his policies were having an effect on the unemployment rate, which the report said declined to 8.3 percent in January. The president is right about one thing: his big government agenda and class warfare tactics are having an effect -- but it's not the one he claims. In truth, last month's drop in the unemployment statistic was due largely to the evaporation of 1.2 million people from the labor force number. When people become so discouraged they stop actively looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed and the rate goes down even though Americans are hardly better off than they were before.The rate went down in January because (apparently) 1.2 million people decided in a single month not to pursue work. This is the number, in effect, that President Obama is touting.

The January report caps an extraordinary decline in the participation rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been reporting under the Obama administration. Since January 2009, the BLS said more than five million people have dropped out of the labor force -- the greatest decline in American history and the lowest participation rate in more than three decades. Only about six in 10 adult American civilians are counted as part of the labor force.

A few more good jobs reports like this and we'll have a three percent unemployment rate with nobody working.

The president assures us, however, the lower unemployment rate is actually evidence that his policies are successful. Asked on Monday about the fact that unemployment had dropped in part because so many Americans left the labor force, unable to find jobs, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the decline in the participation rate could be an "economic positive" because some of it is "due to younger people getting more education." Carney also tried to blame the massive exodus on Americans getting older—which they must have done at record levels in January to account for 1.2 million people retiring at once. Those are pretty glib and grasping explanations for the single largest exit from the labor force on record—especially since it's more than four times the number who left the previous month.In reality, almost half a million fewer Americans are employed today than when President Obama took office. The real unemployment rate, counting those who are unemployed, underemployed, or have looked for work in the past 12 months but since given up, is closer to 15 percent. More Americans are relying on food stamps than ever before. Teenage unemployment during the Obama administration is the highest since records began in 1948, with almost one in four teenagers who wants to work today unable to find a job. 8.2 million Americans have only part-time employment either because they can't find full-time work or because their hours have been cut back.The president's unrelenting assault on job creators has made a bad economy much worse. In the middle of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, he rammed through Obamacare, spent almost a trillion dollars of "stimulus" indiscriminately, virtually took over the American auto industry, attempted to raise taxes on producers with carbon trading legislation, banned development of offshore oil and gas resources, passed the Dodd-Frank Act which crippled community banks, juiced up the regulatory powers of the EPA, FDA and other bureaucracies—and lately, has taken to demonizing job creators with class warfare rhetoric while offering policy platitudes that do nothing to solve our problems. These are the things the president is trying to tell us are responsible for last month's drop in the unemployment rate? Having driven five million people out of the labor force, maybe on second thought he's right. Your Friend,

Newt got creamed by Romney in the FL debate on his lunar colonies idea when he did not answer, but in typical Gingrich fashion he is looking to deal with a real problem (see the Outer Space thread) in a creative way-- what he says here makes considerable sense to me:==========Dear Marc,In the past 10 years – since the Columbia tragedy led President Bush to retire the Space Shuttle, we have spent almost $150 billion on NASA and the civilian space program. We have spent additional money on defense aspects of the space program. Yet the United States currently has no way to launch a human being into space, other than buying seats from Russia.

NASA has accomplished some difficult things in its history, but spending $150 billion on the space program without developing a rocket and spacecraft to launch astronauts into space is near the top of the list.

For Americans who lived through the heroic era of early exploration in space and getting to the moon, it is hard to believe that in 2012 we are once again stranded on the Earth's surface.

NASA has reached this point by achieving a perverse breakthrough: the bureaucratization of space. The modern NASA is so risk averse, and so heavily burdened with safety processes, management, political meddling, and institutional inertia that it takes decades for new programs to get off the ground.

This week marks the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's becoming the first American to orbit the Earth. The time from Glenn's Mercury 6 mission in February 1962 to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon in July 1969 was seven years and five months, to the day.

In that period we figured out how to perform frequent launches, keep humans alive in space for weeks, conduct space walks, rendezvous and dock two spacecraft in orbit, travel to the moon, land on it, walk around there, launch back off, and return to Earth. Each of these achievements presented innumerable challenges. Yet from launching one person to landing on the moon took less than seven and a half years.

The Shuttle program lasted 30 years, not counting the decade it was being developed. And after 30 years, we are reduced to buying seats for American astronauts on a class of Russian spacecraft first launched 45 years ago, in 1967.

Even if rocket scientists and astro-physicists do view time scales a little differently than most people, it would be desirable for the human space program to make some significant advances over the span of their entire careers.

The men and women who went to work at NASA after having been inspired by our bold space achievements during their youth or by dreams of a spacefaring future cannot be satisfied with what our space program has become. The elected officials who direct them should not be either. And the American people should be dissatisfied with both.

The way forward for the U.S. in space should be rooted in our entrepreneurial values and our spirit of adventure. We must open space to the private sector, allowing free citizens take risks--both financial and physical--in pursuit of our aims on this frontier.

The model for rapid progress at low cost can come straight from the history of aviation. In its infancy, aviation advanced by a series of monetary prizes set for particular feats. Starting in 1906, the U.K.'s Daily Mail offered rewards for the first people to achieve various milestones, including a non-stop flight between London and Manchester and flying across the English channel. In the U.S., William Randolph Hearst offered $50,000 in 1910 for the first person to fly from coast to coast in 30 days. Most famously, Raymond Orteig offered a prize of $25,000 in 1919 for the first person to fly non-stop from New York to Paris. It took eight years, but Charles Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize in 1927.

These competitions were far more dangerous than many today might imagine. In the 1927 Dole Air Race from California to Hawaii, only two of more than 15 entrant planes made it to Hawaii. But the pilots took such risks eagerly and freely, and in doing so made enormous strides in advancing and popularizing aviation.

A prize system similar to that of the early 20th century, aimed at enticing private companies to pursue our goals in space, would be a far more effective and exciting approach for the United States, and it would better reflect our values than does a massive bureaucracy incompetently managed by Congress and appointed bureaucrats.

The privately funded X-Prize Foundation conducted such an experiment in recent years, offering a comparatively small $10 million prize for a two manned suborbital flights in a reusable spacecraft within two weeks. It drew more than two dozen competitors, and the prize was awarded in 2004.

If, instead of spending almost $20 billion each year and getting nothing new in terms of human spaceflight, Congress set aside a large sum for prizes--say 10 percent of NASA's budget, or $18 billion over a decade--we could save hundreds of billions and still get better results. We could dramatically reduce the size of NASA and refocus its mission on breakthroughs in science and technology, rather than developing or operating basic launch vehicles and spacecraft.

After I discussed the prize concept with Robert Zubrin in the 1990s, he estimated in his book The Case for Mars that if Congress posted “a $20 billion reward to be given to the first private organization to successfully land a crew on Mars and return them to Earth, as well as several prizes of a few billion dollars each for various milestone technical accomplishments along the way,” it would draw numerous competitors. The actual mission, he estimates, could cost as little as $4 billion, leaving the winner with a $16 billion profit and the taxpayers with a system that gets to Mars thereafter for a fraction of NASA's annual budget.

Prizes have several huge advantages, which Zubrin also points out: • We don't pay anything unless and until we actually get results--and we never pay more than the prize amount. If no one offers a system of launch vehicles and spacecraft that meet the prize specifications, it doesn't cost anything. And cost overruns are impossible even if there is a winner. After spending $150 billion on NASA for no current manned capability, this is quite a virtue.• It would result in systems radically cheaper than those NASA has produced. NASA contractors are paid on a cost-plus basis, meaning whatever they spend “plus” a markup. This gives them a disincentive to save money. In a prize system, a company has to raise or borrow every dollar a company it spends, and then decreases their ultimate profit. • Many competitors will spend money investing in technology and developing new solutions, but won't win the prize. And they spend all the money before the taxpayers ever have to pay anything.• Competition breeds better, more diverse results. While NASA projects typically result in only one working design, a single prize incentive could produce several viable designs that make it to the flight stage--each will have different merits. Awarding runner-up prizes further stokes the competition. The golden age of the space program is a piece of our history that makes all Americans feel proud. But today's non-manned interim program discredits that history and disappoints its employees and supporters. It's obvious that the bureaucratic model is failing, and failing expensively. With a prize-based, entrepreneurial approach, we can recapture the spirit of adventure and again be the envy of the world in space.Your Friend,

President Obama's apologies keep getting more outrageous and more destructive.

They started in the summer of 2008, before he was even elected president. Then-Senator Obama travelled to Berlin to introduce himself as "a citizen of the world," and said, "I know my country has not perfected itself…We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

Next came the Apology Tour of 2009, when President Obama travelled to France to apologize for our "failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world," saying "America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." (It's hard to know where to begin with that one.)

He told the Turkish Parliament that "the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history."

He apologized to Central and South America for the United States having "at times been disengaged and…having sought to dictate on our terms."

In Cairo, he explained American actions after the Sept. 11 Attacks by saying, "The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals," and said tensions between the U.S. and Muslim world were due in part to "a cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."

An illegally leaked diplomatic cable from Japan to the U.S. even seems to suggest President Obama wanted to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II, until Japan nixed the idea.

For all this apologizing the president was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize, but his actions weakened the United States diplomatically and made America less secure.

As damaging as President Obama's compulsion to apologize has been, however, it was not until last week that we saw its true potential to put American lives and military objectives at risk. By apologizing unnecessarily to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the inadvertent burning by U.S. forces of Korans which had been confiscated from imprisoned extremists, the president made the situation in Afghanistan even worse.

Apparently the prisoners were writing in the books—and the books were inadvertently burned with the military’s trash outside Bagram Air Base, where they were spotted during the incineration process by local Afghans.

The violence that has erupted in Afghanistan in response to this mishap has been completely disproportionate. Riots and protests across the country have resulted in more than 30 people killed and hundreds injured. At least four Americans have died in targeted attacks since the crisis began. In one incident, an Afghan official apparently murdered his counterparts in the U.S. military, inside a base.

Instead of the United States treating this issue as it was—an accident, not reflective of any American policy or attitude—our leaders behaved as though the protests were based on a legitimate grievance. Afghanistan received apologies from "Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, the White House, NATO's International Security Assistance Force and other Pentagon officials," as Fox News reported.

The United States apologized for this accidental disposal even though the military intentionally burned a significant number of Bibles in 2009 that had been sent unsolicited from an American church, on the fear that "if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslim." Clearly there's no endemic lack of sensitivity in the military leadership.

Yet finally, on Thursday, President Obama apparently could resist no longer. He wrote President Karzai a letter in which he expressed his "deep regret," offered his "sincere apologies," and promised to "take appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

Tens of thousands of American men and women are in Afghanistan fighting to maintain security and prop up President Karzai's government. Thousands of American and coalition troops have died. Four have been killed as a result of the protests. And President Obama is promising to "hold accountable those responsible" for the unintentional burning of a few books prisoners were themselves desecrating to pass messages.

The president's letter is outrageous, and he first owes an apology to the men and women in uniform for his failure as commander-in-chief to defend their honor. What's worse, he may have made their jobs even more dangerous. By apologizing he inflamed the sense that Afghans had been wronged and gave anti-American forces there the message that their violent, senseless protests were achieving something. It might come as a surprise to the president, but not all of his apologies win people over. Most of the time, they just make America look weak.

There's no doubt that President Obama has a lot to apologize for. But before he continues diminishing the United States on the world stage, he should start by apologizing to the American people.

Gasoline: 70% offby Newt GingrichDear Marc,Six years ago, the New York Times profiled Charif Souki, the chairman of the Cheniere Energy company, which was building a nationwide network of natural gas import terminals. North American production of natural gas was declining, and Souki hoped to cash in on increased natural gas imports.

Now, just a few years later, the price of natural gas has collapsed, largely due to an enormous increase in American supplies made possible by new discoveries and technologies. In January the Times ran another story on Mr. Souki. It was headlined, "U.S. Company, in Reversal, Wants to Export Natural Gas." His Cheniere Energy is now planning to spend at least $10 billion to convert its import terminals into export terminals.

Cheniere's story highlights the incredible shift in the natural gas industry over the past decade. In the early 2000s, experts believed the U.S. would soon be forced to import most of its natural gas from foreign sources, and the industry invested billions to expand import capacity by almost 900 percent, from 2 billion cubic feet per day to 17.4 billion feet per day. Today, most of these facilities remain unused while companies like Cheniere Energy race to expand America's capacity to export natural gas.

The reversal comes thanks to the shale gas revolution, improvements in technology that have made it possible to retrieve the natural gas trapped in shale. In the period of just a few years, our estimated supply in North America has gone from less than a decade's worth of gas left to more than a century's worth.

Several weeks ago in this newsletter, I suggested $2.50 should be an attainable price for a gallon of gasoline with an aggressive American energy policy which, among other things, greatly expands drilling permits for federal lands. $2.50 would be about a one-third decline in price from Monday's national average of $3.77 per gallon.

The Left and their allies in the media—who would sooner see prices rise to $8 a gallon than make pickup trucks and SUVs affordable to fill up—defensively protested that $2.50 a gallon was "unrealistic," or even, in the words of David Axelrod, "magic fairy dust."

My suggestion to lower gasoline prices is based on exactly the same "magic fairy dust" that has caused the price of natural gas to decline 70 percent since 2008: supply and demand. Before the shale gas revolution dramatically enlarged our supply, natural gas cost almost $8 per MMbtu in 2008. At the end of last week, the spot price was $2.36 per MMbtu. This steep crash in price came with just an 11 percent increase in total production from 2008 to 2011.

A similar 70 percent drop in gasoline prices would give us $1.13 a gallon gasoline. That's less than half of the $2.50 a gallon I have argued should be realistic. So while it's not possible to make a direct comparison between the oil market and natural gas markets, there should be no doubt that a substantial supply increase can yield a big drop in price. Expanding our exploration and development of oil can bring similar economic forces to bear on the cost of gasoline that have produced this collapse in natural gas prices.

Critics on the left claim that any effect of expanded federal leasing on oil and gas prices will be years away. But that's simply not true. A real commitment to an American energy policy can put downward pressure on prices right away, since the market anticipates future supply changes today. Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, addressed this effect in the Wall Street Journal back in 2008, as then -candidate Obama was claiming (like he still is today) that we couldn't "drill our way out" of higher gas prices. Feldstein wrote that "any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future." The president could help relieve consumers immediately by ending his opposition to substantial new oil and gas development.

The credible promise of increased American energy production can have other positive economic effects in the near future as well. In the case of natural gas, the shale revolution has made home heating and manufacturing less expensive, and some manufacturing jobs are already returning to the U.S. because of the lower cost of energy from natural gas. A commitment to more development of American oil supplies will only accelerate these trends.The record low price of natural gas is itself likely to help tame the rising cost of gasoline. At no time in recent history has natural gas been cheaper relative to oil:

By substituting natural gas for gasoline where economically rational, such as in public transportation fleets or other vehicles that are expensive to operate on gasoline, reduced consumption of gasoline will also help drive prices down. And because natural gas is roughly 75 percent cheaper than oil on an energy equivalent basis, companies and individuals are responding to the prices all by themselves. In fact, Chrysler and General Motors this week are announcing pickup trucks powered by natural gas.

The contrast could not be clearer: President Obama has killed jobs and taken hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to support fantasy technologies which aren't ready and which are more expensive than gasoline. We want to use the power of supply and demand to lower the price of gasoline, create jobs, and allow Americans to voluntarily choose cheaper forms of energy, using technology that's ready to go in cars and trucks today.Who's not being realistic again?Your Friend,

Dear Marc,I have some breaking news to share: The latest polls show that Newt is in first place in both Alabama and Mississippi!In Alabama he holds a one point lead with 30% and in Mississippi he holds a four point lead with 35%. While we're excited Newt is leading the pack, the race is still extremely tight and every vote will count.

Both Alabama and Mississippi go to the polls next Tuesday, and we are taking nothing for granted. Newt is aggressively campaigning across both states right now and our grassroots volunteers are hard at work reaching out to undecided voters.As Newt travels both states, it's clear his message of $2.50 gasoline is resonating and voters are responding to his bold leadership that has put President Obama on the defensive over his failed policies.Now more than ever we need a quick infusion of donations to help spread Newt's message just days before voters go to the ballot box. Can you chip in $25, $50, $100 or more right now to help Newt win Alabama and Mississippi?Newt has the momentum at just the right time, and your generous donation today will go a long way towards boosting our voter turnout effort in Alabama and Mississippi.Thank you,Michael Krull Campaign Manager Newt 2012

Dear Marc, With different media outlets and campaigns reporting various numbers, there's been a lot of confusion lately about the state of the delegate race. As a key supporter of our campaign, I wanted to make sure you were armed with the correct numbers from the Republican National Committee - and not the spin from the DC Establishment who are trying to prematurely end the race for the Republican nomination. Here are two quick things to keep in mind.First, the magic number of delegates to secure the nomination is 1,144 and no candidate is remotely close to that number. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all delegates will come from states that haven't voted yet.Second, there is an important distinction between bound and unbound delegates. Most media outlets are reporting estimates or projections which include unbound delegates from various beauty contests.What only matters at this point is the number of bound delegates. According to the Republican National Committee, here's the official breakdown:Romney - 339 delegates Gingrich - 107 delegates Santorum - 95 delegates Paul - 22 delegatesAs you can see, Newt is currently in second place. Many of Senator Santorum's victories came in states whose delegates will not be selected until much later in the process. For this reason, Newt wasn't expending a lot of time or resources in these states, choosing instead to focus on states with bound delegates. That strategy has now been validated by the official RNC delegate count.Keep in mind, this breakdown doesn't take into account the fact that the challenge to the "winner take all" awarding of delegates from both Florida and Arizona - which won't be decided until this summer's convention - could reduce Governor Romney's delegate advantage dramatically.Here's a story from the Washington Times which outlines the delegate math in greater detail, and shows that Newt is actually in second place. Simply put, Newt is in the race for the long haul. Thank you for your generous support and for standing with Newt's campaign.Sincerely,Martin Baker National Political Director Newt 2012P.S. With two new polls released today showing Newt leading in Tuesday's Alabama and Mississippi primaries, we are in a great position to add even more delegates to our count. Please make a generous contribution today to help maximize our voter turnout operation in Alabama and Mississippi.

Newt's job is to either drop out or spin things positive the best that he can. The Cain ruile is that you are all in verbally and in fund raising until the last minute that you are out. The race for second OTOH is important because front runners can and do stumble. But getting beat 3 to 1 margin by a 'weak frontrunner' and bragging about it isn't looking too good.

The delegate count is a little misleading because several of Santorum's wins were in in caucus states where no immediate delegates were awarded but his delegates disproportionately moved forward to the conventions where Presidential delegate votes will eventually be awarded.

Newt's strength is the south. He says he is leading in states in a statistical tie where the momentum is against him.

I like that he won his home state where people have known him longest and know him best. His daughter Jackie Gingrich Cushman wrote a nice op-ed on that recently.

Yes GM, letters to contributors are a plea for help.

If either Santorum or Newt could see the other as the next Reagan emerging, then maybe one would drop out. No one I guess drops out based on sympathy for the other competitors. You drop out because you are out of money or to save face.

How does a 'brokered' convention, best case for Rick or Newt, endorse anyone other than the far and away front runner. The elites switch to the second or third place candidate on the second ballot or to someone who skipped the process entirely or dropped out early? I just don't see it. I've been at a lot of endorsing conventions. In a bitterly divided party you always have the option of not endorsing. That is unthinkable. Delegates move their vote on subsequent ballots to where they see strength and momentum. For the Dems in '08, Hillary had momentum at the end, Obama had strength. A small lead guaranteed victory because the elites were not going to reverse that in August to lose legitimacy in November. Elections, even primaries, have consequences.

I thought he was very strong on energy issues; energy independence and getting energy costs down by allowing increased supply.

Then he was asked about Afpakia. He squarely said the mission may have become undoable with the amount of force we are willing to bring to bear and expanded the concept to the middle east as a whole and squarely raised the possibility that we walk away altogether and say to others (e.g. the Chinese) that it is there problem now because we are going to be energy independent in a few years.

Then the time for the segment ended. I wish there had been enough time for Wallace to have followed up asking about Iran going nuke were the US to follow such a strategy.

I could have posted this in other threads, but I posted it here because of its implications for the presidential campaign. As I have noted in the last day or so, the US domestic politics of Afpakia are problematic for the Rep Party and what Newt says here is a very interesting development.Here's a WSJ article on this:=====================By Gary FieldsRepublican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Sunday the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, calling the mission “undoable.”

In some of his strongest language about the role of the U.S. in Afghanistan, Mr. Gingrich said on “Fox News Sunday” he had reached the conclusion “frankly about the entire region that is much more pessimistic than Washington’s official position.”

“I think we’re risking the lives of young men and women in a mission that frankly may not be doable,” he said.

His comments came hours after a U.S. soldier went on a shooting spree killing at least 16 Afghan civilians and wounding several more, an incident that threatens to increase already strained tensions between Washington and Kabul. The accidental burning of Qurans touched off days of violence across Afghanistan with six U.S. troops killed by Afghan security personnel in an eight-day period.

Mr. Gingrich said the shooting must be investigated and “we have to indicate clearly and convince the people of Afghanistan that justice will be done and that we’re not going to tolerate that kind of thing.” He added that the families of the victims should be compensated “for the tragic loss.”

Mr. Gingrich said how the U.S. responds can serve as a clear example of the difference between the U.S. and the Taliban and al Qaeda, who target civilians. “We have to live up to our standards and our values,” he said.

The shooting incident was roundly condemned by American officials, although some differed with Mr. Gingrich on what should happen next. The GOP primary has seen unusual splits on national security, with Ron Paul on one end of the scale pledging an isolationist policy, and Mitt Romney on the other promising to build up the U.S. Navy and maintain American military superiority.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said the incident was “tragic” but he thought the U.S. could “win this thing. We can get it right.”

Mr. Graham, speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” said his recommendation to the public is to listen to Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. “The surge of forces has really put the Taliban on the defensive.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, addressing the incident Sunday during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, said a soldier “went into a couple of homes and just killed people at random.”

“Our hearts go out to these innocent people,” said Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat. “Our troops are under such tremendous pressure in Afghanistan. It’s a war like no other war we’ve been involved in. But no one can condone or make any suggestion that what he did was right because it was absolutely wrong.”

Mr. Reid said he believes the U.S. is making progress in drawing down troop levels. “I think we’re going to find out that hopefully we can get out of there as scheduled and things will be stabilized when we do that,” Mr. Reid said.

Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association chairman, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the U.S. military has done great work in more than a decade of fighting the “global war on terror,” but added that “one incident like this in the minds of the civilian population who we’re trying to win their hearts and minds, as well as the battle against the terrorists in Afghanistan, can change the equation.”

Dear Friend,With your help we finished a strong second in both Alabama and Mississippi and picked up a large amount of delegates.The Washington establishment is trying to prematurely end the Republican primary, but this race is far from over. As my two of my senior advisors wrote in a memo today, it’s not even halftime yet. These past few weeks have provided additional evidence that I am the candidate best prepared to take the fight to President Obama and defeat him in November.After we launched our $2.50 gas plan, we forced President Obama – or as I jokingly say on the campaign trail, President Algae – to respond with two fantasy-filled energy speeches. This week President Obama’s press secretary called me a liar for saying we can lower gasoline prices below $2.50 by implementing the right pro-American energy policies. And today, Energy Secretary Chu said he “no longer” wants higher gas prices, backtracking from his 2008 statement saying he wanted gas prices to reach European levels. Taken together, the White House is clearly on the defensive.

According to a new ABC/Washington Post poll, 65% of the American people now disapprove of the president’s handling of gas prices. Unlike the other candidates, we are leading the fight against President Obama’s failed energy policies – and winning.This campaign will continue because of people like Samuel Samford, our 175,000th donor from Jacksonville, Florida. Samuel is currently unemployed, but he believes so much in our $2.50 gas plan, that he recently donated $2.50 to our campaign. With over 175,000 donors, our campaign has been fueled by Americans who believe we need big solutions to rebuild the America we love. You have my commitment I will continue to carry that message across the country. We are well positioned for the second half, but we need your help to have the necessary resources to be competitive in upcoming states like Louisiana and Illinois. Please help us continue the fight by making a generous donation today.Thank you,

Worth noting is that it is Newt who is at the tip of the Rep spear on energy issues with his $2.50 gas program and thinking like this. You and I both agree that the economy is central. How many can think specifically of what Santorum offers on the economy?============Paying off the national debt with more energy and lower pricesby Newt GingrichDear Marc,Two very large numbers are essential in the American public debate today. They are so big that they are almost inconceivable.

The first number is 15.5 trillion. That's a 14 digit number.

$15.5 trillion is the size of the U.S. national debt—more or less the amount the federal government owes individuals, organizations, and governments that have loaned money to it. To put this number in a more human perspective, it's roughly $50,000 for every person in the United States.

$50,000 is more than the U.S. median income, about $44,000. That means if a normal, working American worked an entire year and devoted his or her entire income to nothing other than paying off their share of the national debt, they still wouldn't pay off the full amount.

Today's national debt is so large that it is very difficult to imagine a solution. President Obama has added $4 trillion during his administration alone. That means the Obama administration in three years has added nearly 40 percent to the national debt.

The problem of balancing the budget and reducing the national debt didn't always seem so insurmountable. When I was Speaker, we balanced the budget for four straight years, resulting in real surpluses and paying down the national debt by $400 billion. When I left the speakership in 1999 the entire public debt was scheduled to be paid off by this year, 2012.

The government even began preparing for the possible difficulties this could cause the financial system, since if the U.S. paid off its entire debt there would be no more U.S. Treasury bonds. As NPR said in its story uncovering the secret report last year, the danger has clearly passed. Irresponsible Republican leadership in the early 2000s, when we never passed a single balanced budget, and the Democrats' explosion in spending and the size of government since meant the prospect of paying off the debt disappeared long ago.

Today the obvious means of paying off the national debt are all unpleasant. Both taxes (which take money from Americans directly) and inflation (which take it from us indirectly) would be very painful for the American people, making it less likely that anything will be done about this serious problem.

That's where the second very large number could come in: 1.44 trillion (a 13 digit number).

1.44 trillion is the number of recoverable barrels of oil estimated to be in the United States, waiting to be produced. That's about the amount of oil the entire world has consumed since the first well was drilled before the Civil War. In addition, we have an estimated 2.744 quadrillion (a 15 digit number) cubic feet of natural gas.

Much of these resources are on federal lands, meaning the American people own them.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Harold Hamm, a major developer of the Bakken formation in North Dakota, said he calculated that “if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, "I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties."

That is more than our current national debt—the first number, $15.5 trillion.

This potential for new federal revenue without new taxes opens up a third possibility that is much less painful than taxes and inflation: the government could simply lease the rights to develop the energy resources in various tracts of federal land.

As Mr. Hamm's calculations suggest, we should not underestimate the potential of an American energy program to go a long way toward restoring America's fiscal health. Lease terms for producing oil and gas on federal lands, on-shore or offshore, include an agreement that companies will pay royalty shares on production to the government. For on-shore leases, the rate is one-eighth of production value; offshore, lease terms vary but range between 12 and 20 percent of the value produced.

In 2007, the federal government collected $9.4 billion in revenues on offshore drilling in the OCS. Considering only 2 percent of federal OCS lands are available for production, that would be $470 billion if it earned the same rate off all OCS lands.

Clearly, there is enormous potential revenue for the federal government locked up in lands we are currently doing nothing with, at a time of exploding deficits and fiscal downgrades.

Opening up American energy production would be a boon to cash-strapped state governments, as well. Revenue from on-shore resources is generally split 50/50 between the state and federal government. While revenue sharing with states is not yet standard for offshore drilling on federal lands, the few recent leases that have been permitted have included similar arrangements. In 2006, lease terms gave Gulf states a 37.5 percent share of revenues.

This expanded production of American energy would create millions of jobs and bring down the price of gasoline to $2.50 a gallon or less.

It tells you the scale of our domestic energy resources that revenue from one-eighth their value could eventually pay off our national debt of $50,000 per person. It tells you the extent of the Obama administration's extremism that it won't let us tap them. Your Friend,

Yeah, that's going to put a stake through the "It's all about Newt's vanity and ego" narrative.

Worth noting is that it is Newt who is at the tip of the Rep spear on energy issues with his $2.50 gas program and thinking like this. You and I both agree that the economy is central. How many can think specifically of what Santorum offers on the economy?

Hey, Newt has my vote to be Mitt's chief speechwriter! It's also worth noting that out of the three, only one doesn't beat Obozo head to head in national polling.

When President Obama took office in January 2009, the average price of gasoline was $1.89 a gallon. Three years later the average is $3.82 a gallon.

President Obama's response to soaring gasoline prices has been touting algae-powered cars, saying we can't drill our way to lower gas prices, and deriding anybody who puts forth solutions for more American energy. In a speech today in Maryland, President Obama once again directly attacked Newt's plan for $2.50 gasoline. This comes days after the White House Press Secretary called Newt a liar for saying we can lower gasoline prices by producing more American energy.

To add insult to injury, the Obama administration asked Saudi Arabia this week to increase their oil production.

What President Obama refuses to recognize is that we should haven't to bow to the Saudi's for energy. America has abundant energy resources here at home – an estimated 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil that could power us for over 250 years. With the right policies, including immediately authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, we could dramatically lower gasoline prices below $2.50 a gallon and make America energy independent.

Unlike the other candidates, Newt is leading the fight against President Obama's failed energy policies and has put the White House on the defensive with his plan for $2.50 gasoline. By all this attention, it is clear that Newt is the candidate that the White House fears the most. Please make a generous donation today and send a message to President Obama: it's time stop bowing and start drilling.